Both were good-looking young Caucasians, self-enlisted soldiers in an imagined cosmic war to save Christendom. Both thought their acts of mass destruction would trigger a great battle to rescue society from the liberal forces of multiculturalism that allowed non-Christians and non-whites positions of acceptability. Both regretted the loss of life but thought their actions were “necessary.” For that they were staunchly unapologetic. And both were Christian terrorists.

Their similarities even extend to the kind of explosive used in their actions. Both used a mixture of fuel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer; which Breivik said he needed for his farm operations. The farm, it turned out, was rented largely because it was a convenient place to test his car bombs.

And then there is the matter of dates. McVeigh was fixed on the day of April 19, the anniversary of the Waco siege. Breivik chose July 22, which was the day in 1099 that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established during the First Crusades.

The title of Breivik’s manifesto, which was posted on the Internet on that day, is 2083—the date Breivik suggested would be the culmination of a 70-year war that began with his action. Yet 70 years from 2011 would be 2081; why did he date the final purge of Muslims from Norway to be two years later, in 2083? I found the answer on page 242 of Breivik’s manifesto, where he explains that on 1683 at the Battle of Vienna, the Ottoman Empire’s military was defeated in a protracted struggle, thereby insuring that most of Europe would not become part of the Muslim empire. The date in Breivik’s title is the 400th anniversary of that decisive battle, and in Breivik’s mind he was re-creating the historic efforts to save Europe from what he imagined to be the evils of Islam.

The threat of Islam is a dominant motif of his 1500-page manifesto, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence.” The writing of a manifesto is a major difference between Breivik and McVeigh, who was not a writer; instead McVeigh copied and quoted from his favorite book, The Turner Diaries, a novel by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald.

McVeigh’s beloved novel explains his motives in a matter eerily similar to the writings of Breivik in his 2083 manifesto: He thought that liberal politicians had given in to the forces of globalization and multiculturalism, and that the “mudpeople” (non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, non-patriarchal males) were trying to take over the country. To save the country for Christendom, the righteous white, straight, non-feminist Christian males had to be shocked into reality by the force of an explosion that would signal to them that the war had begun. These were McVeigh’s ideas from The Turner Diaries, and they were also Breivik’s.

“The time for dialogue is over,” Breivik writes on page 811 of his manifesto. “The time for armed resistance has come.” The enemies in this imagined cosmic war are “the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites” whom he regards as the “Nazis of our time,” intent on “leading us [white Europeans] to the cultural slaughterhouse by selling us into Muslim slavery.” Breivik says threateningly to the “multiculturalist elite” that “we know who you are, where you live and we are coming for you.”

The manifesto is an interesting and eclectic document, something of a scrapbook of everything from his instructions for small-scale farming to a syllabus for a course on revolution that he’d love to see taught (complete with an extensive bibliography that includes authors Immanuel Wallerstein, Theda Skocpol, and Eric Hobsbawm; it recommends as a textbook Theorizing Revolutions, a book written by one of my colleagues at UC Santa Barbara, John Foran). It also includes theoretical and historical overviews of European history and political ideas, and an attempt to explain Muslim ideas and Islamic history; skewed in such a way to make it appear as if this major religious tradition were a single ideology eager to control the world.

The manifesto also includes a how-to manual for the creation of terrorist devices and acts of terrorism themselves—a manual not unlike the Army of God handbook created by Christian anti-abortion activists, most likely penned by Lutheran pastor Michael Bray. It advises on costumes that might be worn in order to avoid detection (including a policeman’s uniform).

Perhaps the most interesting section is Breivik’s day-by-day accounts of the weeks preceding the July 22 bombing and massacre, a chronology that ends with this matter-of-fact statement: “I believe this will be my last entry. It is now Fri July 22nd, 12.51.”

Moments later he posted the 1500-page book on the website, before allegedly driving to downtown Oslo to detonate the bomb that killed seven and shattered major buildings containing the offices of the ruling political party. Afterward, he reportedly donned the policeman’s uniform to gain entrance to the liberal party’s youth camp where he coldly murdered over 80 of the young people in a rampage that lasted more than an hour.

Like McVeigh, he thought that this horrible dramatic action would bring a hidden war into the open. Like many modern terrorists, his violent act was a form of performance violence, a symbolic attempt at empowerment to show the world that for the moment he was in charge. The terrorist act was a wake-up call, and a signal that the war had begun.

Behind the earthly conflict was a cosmic war, a battle for Christendom. As the title of Breivik’s manifesto indicates, he thought he was re-creating that historical moment in which Christianity was defended against the hordes and Islam was purged from what he imagined to be the purity of European society.

Breivik meticulously detailed what he expected to be the historical trajectory of this war through four stages, culminating in 2083. He expected that the forces of multiculturalism would be tough, and would resist the efforts to combat it. “It will take us up to 70 years to win,” Breivik writes on page 811, but adds that “there is no doubt in our minds that we will eventually succeed.”

In the final phase, the civil war between the evil multiculturalists and the righteous few, a series of coup d’etats throughout Europe, will overthrow the liberal forces. Then, finally “the deportation of Muslims” will begin, and European Christendom will be restored.

Is this a religious vision, and am I right in calling Breivik a Christian terrorist? It is true that Breivik—and McVeigh, for that matter—were much more concerned about politics, race, and history than about scripture and religious belief; with Breivik even going so far as to write that “It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).”

But much the same can be said about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and many other Islamist activists. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer, and Zawahiri was a medical doctor; neither were theologians or clergy. Their writings show that they were much more interested in Islamic history than theology or scripture, and imagined themselves as re-creating glorious moments in Islamic history in their own imagined wars. Tellingly, Breivik writes of al Qaeda with admiration, as if he would love to create a Christian version of their religious cadre.

If bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist, Breivik and McVeigh are surely Christian ones. Breivik was fascinated with the Crusades and imagined himself to be a member of the Knights Templar, the crusader army of a thousand years ago. But in an imagined cosmic warfare time is suspended and history is transcended, as the activists imagine themselves to be acting out timeless roles in a sacred drama. The tragedy is that these religious fantasies are played out in real time, with real and cruel consequences.

Comments

"If bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist, Breivik and McVeigh are surely Christian ones." Note to defensive Christians: the author did say "if." It was his rhetorical way of saying that the conflict between Middle East and West is broader than Allah vs Jesus. That's my take on it, anyway.

But is he trying to diffuse (or defuse) religious animosity by casting it as a smaller part of a bigger conflict, a conflict of cultures and traditions? I hope so.

Political Correctness stifles discussion of such differences, which probably inspires lone wolves to make a big mark (as it were), out of frustration.

I like walking into a liquor store and hearing Arabic music. But west of the Atlantic, we don't have to worry about Middle Easterners out-reproducing us and setting up some of their hard-to-accept social and political practices here.

(Oh, did I make a reference to differences in reproductive rates? How ever so declasse of moi!!!)

It's fascinating that when the rare non Muslim terrorist act takes place it becomes hugely important to folks that are denying the reality of the modern world. Yea The Crusades were wacked but that was a very long time ago. The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts today are committed by Muslims; the fact that they are or are not devote or motivated by purely religious reasons is of little practical importance. They still "happen" to be Muslim.

"The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts today are committed by Muslims.""The simple truth is that this is a lie."

This is not a lie. There is a suicide bombing almost daily in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. These bombings are not for political reasons, but for extremist Islamist reasons. Go "over there" and see first hand yourself.

Nonsense, Professor. For them to be *Christian* terrorists you must show that they 1. Are actual believers and/or 2. Appeal to religious teachings for justification. Neither Breivik nor McVeigh qualify. McVeigh's religious views are unclear at best: Sometimes he professed a vague theism, other times agnosticism, others that "science is my religion". Breivik makes it clear in his manifesto that he is not a believer, and is interested in Christianity only to the extent that it's part of the Western tradition, and that he hopes to make common cause with European Christians.

Bin Laden, on the other hand, gave many signs of being a believing Muslim, and invoked the time-honoured Islamic principle of jihad to justify his actions. Prove the equivalent for Breivik and McVeigh and you might have a case, otherwise...

Please explain the difference between "political reasons" and "extremist" reasons.

I realize that some people prefer to rely on their fear-filled impressions than on facts, but non-Muslim terrorist acts are neither rare nor in the minority in the United States or in Europe, where Christianity is supposed to be under siege: in 2010 "Islamist terrorists carried out three attacks on EU territory. Separatist groups, on the other hand, were responsible for 160 attacks, while left-wing and anarchist groups were responsible for 45 attacks" (https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/d...).

In the context of a discussion of right-wing and Christian extremists in the US and Europe, the claim that "the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts today are committed by Muslims," disregarding the fact that most Muslim terrorism occurs elsewhere and is directed against other Muslims, is so misleading as to qualify as a lie.

Economics plays a role here, as well as empire. I trust most commentors wouldn't go on a shooting spree at a summer camp. However, if the Russians invaded and made Michelle Bachman dictator for life, we'd all be trying to bomb government property.

@tmcmanig "There is a suicide bombing almost daily in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. These bombings are not for political reasons, but for extremist Islamist reasons."

The U.S. military is a much bigger terrorist organization than any Muslim extremists, they bomb innocent people every day. In fact that is THE primary drive behind terrorism, is the fact that we have a strong military presence in their region.

I wonder why there are so many religious extremists in the Middle East? Is it because international intelligence agencies including the CIA want them to be that way?

So Muslim terrorism is irrelevant because the U.S. military is a bigger "terrorist", except that it is relevant because it provides a nice rhetorical stick with which to bash the CIA? And I thought the Prof's reasoning was weak!!

Wow, you really did miss the point of my post and you obviously didn't read the link. Don't bash my reasoning until you understand it first.

Muslim terrorism exists mostly because we are a bigger terrorist, we kill more innocent people over there, it's a fact. When we stop terrorizing Muslims with our big bad robots, we will BEGIN to stop creating Muslim terrorists who hate us. We will never stop terrorism, but we have to recognize where it comes from and when you create more terrorists by fighting terrorism and you continue to kill massive amounts of innocent people it is both illogical and immoral.

Are you aware that the CIA overthrew a Democratically elected leader in Iran in 1952 for BP (British Petroleum)? We installed a DICTATOR in his place.

What did the leader in Iran have to do with our national security in 1952?! NOTHING!! We did it for the economic interests of British Petroleum (BP). Ever since we have been meddling in that region for our economic interests, and not for our national security. We created terrorists, and now we use those terrorists as an excuse to go on more killing sprees.

We need to stop this madness and leave other countries alone. Besides, we can't afford it anymore.

No, Loonpt, I actually did understand your reasoning. My complaint is that your reply to Tmcmanig boils down to, "I know you are but what am I?" You're just off on your own hobby-horse instead of addressing the discussion.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that I did not address the point in their discussion. They said that the only reason why Muslim extremists commit acts of terror is for religious reasons and not political reasons. That is absolutely false. The political reasons are because our government has been meddling in their region, which is religious, but it is the fact that we are taking out their Democratically elected leaders, installing and propping up dictators to rule over them and killing innocent people with our own weapons as well as the ones we give to said dictators. When was the last time Iranian intelligence overthrew our government and installed a dictator for economic reasons? Never? If they did, do you think you would consider fighting them for aggression against our sovereignty?

They use their religion simply as a rallying cry, a way to unite themselves against a bigger power with more resources.

I also showed you how our own intelligence agencies have worked hard to turn Muslims into religious extremists using propaganda tools. Stop blaming them for becoming extreme when we are the ones making them that way with our actions!!

You sound like Bill O'Reilly telling Ron Paul that he doesn't need a history lesson about the Middle East when talking about what is currently happening in the Middle East. If you want to understand what is happening over there, you need to know the real history behind our operations over there, not some watered down half-assed version the media feeds you.

How is someone who commits himself to defending the values of Christian Europe and states "At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian" not a Christian?

"It is ridiculous to insinuate that I did not address the point in their discussion."

Not really. Their discussion was about whether most terrorist acts are committed by Muslims. Your response was to arbitrarily label warfare as terrorism and say "It's all our fault anyway!" Tangential at best.

"They said that the only reason why Muslim extremists commit acts of terror is for religious reasons and not political reasons. That is absolutely false."

Tmcmanig will have to explain exactly what he had in mind himself. That said, I don't see where anyone claimed religion is the *sole* motivation behind Islamic terrorism. It's not either/or.

"They use their religion simply as a rallying cry, a way to unite themselves against a bigger power with more resources."

So you understand their true motives better than they do themselves? All that religion stuff is just talk? That's pretty insulting.

"Stop blaming them for becoming extreme when we are the ones making them that way with our actions!!"

Where did I blame anyone for anything?

"You sound like Bill O'Reilly telling Ron Paul that he doesn't need a history lesson about the Middle East.."

*Both* O'Reilly and Paul need a history lesson. Paul has the right foreign policy ideas but his rhetoric is both shallow and counter-productive.

So warfare of Muslims against Muslims is terrorism, but warfare of anyone else against Muslims is not. If that's where your uncited statistics on the "overwhelming majority" of attacks comes from, it's meaningless in a discussion of threats to the embattled Christian enclaves of US and Europe, although one can see why a self-professed Christian like Breivik might appreciate the logic.

"Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform." (p 1307)

"Q: Why did you choose an allegiance to a group with Christian values and pan-European goals instead of a purely national/regional group? A: Many have asked this question. My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage. My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans..." (p 1381)

So he sees Christianity as a useful tribal identity, but not something you need to believe is actually true. Sounds like a real Holy Roller to me!!!

Yeah, the guy's a terrorist; that was pretty easy to figure out.So the Christian-haters are in their glory now because this wingnut killed people.

One thing that bigots all have in common is that they look for any example of bad behavior by individuals of a given demographic and then use that as a springboard for their own intolorance.

This guy does not represent the majority of those claiming to be Christian and we all know it. As for those who are so angry at Christianity, sorry your lives are so unhappy and that those who claim to be Christians behaved toward you/your ancestors with such hateful hypocrisy, but learn to seperate your emotions from fact. (I don't hate Muslims even though the reason my Mom's family left the Middle East was because they were Christians who were being persecuted)

Do these same socialogists, intellectuals, professors, and all the other "experts" want to to talk about the terror communism inflicted on milliions of people?

How about the French Revolution where some 14 heads per day were rolling off the chopping block in Paris alone all in the spirit of Liberté, égalité, fraternité?

I think its pointless to debate which theologies (or their followers) have more terrorism notches in their belt.

There have been acts of violence & terror on behalf of, or rationalized by, many religions around the world. Anti-abortion Christians in the west who murder doctors, Christian Serbians ethnically cleansing thousands of Muslim Bosnians (e.g. Srebenica), Jewish Zionist extremists murdering Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist hate crimes, etc.

It doesn't really matter how you classify these things because it just gets too academic if taken too far (no offense intended towards Mark Juergensmeyer and his excellent body of work). From a practical viewpoint, you just need to figure out why its happening so you can keep it from growing.

That, I think, is a lesson that's been lost in American foreign policy for some time (although our reactions to the "Arab Spring" shows some small signs of change).

EastBeach,Your response is confusing: You cite a disparate group of nitwits including abortion bombers(a tiny number), civil war and ethnic cleansing(Bosnia), Neo Nazi and White Supremacist(real fringe nuts with insignificant numbers of "attacks") etc.Unless you define terrorist attacks like American progressives do as "anything done by the U.S. everywhere in the world", the greatest number of terrorist attacks is performed by Muslims. I have no idea if they do this because they are Muslim but the fact is still true. The recent guy from Norway is clinically insane. How does that coincide with thousands of attacks by Muslims(over 700 on Israel alone last year) each year. Particularly interesting is the fact that many of these same Muslim dominated countries also have dismal records of internal human rights, totally oppress women, and generally disregard where countries like the U.S. have evolved to over time. Oh yea, many Muslim countries still openly condone slavery against subservient classes or groups. But maybe that's not because they are Muslim... Finally, please enlighten us with the answer that the U.S. apparently cannot grasp since you must have this figured out. Last time Palestine had a free election they willingly elected Hamas who has dutifully followed suit by sponsoring terrorism and let's not judge "Arab Spring" until the votes are all in...

Brought to you by the same zealots who gave us The Cross-eyed Crusades, the Spammish Inquisition, the Salem witch BBQ's, and all the other death and destruction only a brainwashed imbecile can deliver in the name of an imaginary omnipotent.

In spite of its few good works, Religion continues to be the bane of our existence and will prove our uncivilized undoing. ALL you folk who believe invisible deities talk to you, listen to you, care about you are never going to be happy until you doom the rest of us with your insistent delusion.

If only you could have your own planet, not this one, somewhere over the rainbow.

"EastBeach,Your response is confusing: You cite a disparate group of nitwits including abortion bombers(a tiny number), civil war and ethnic cleansing(Bosnia), Neo Nazi and White Supremacist(real fringe nuts with insignificant numbers of "attacks") etc." -Italiansurg-

This is what people such as Mark Juergensmeyer, and Draxor live for, they are in their glory because now they have a poster boy to justify their hatred of Christianity.

Jurgensmeyer has cited a whopping two people to justify his letter. (And remember, he's an academic, so he *must* be more qualified to opine on social and moral matters than the rest of us) In other words, it doesn't matter that communism has a far greater record in recent time of oppression, what matters is that if even a few people kill in the name of Jesus (and to be fair to Draxor, he/she hates all religion) then they will go after Christianity and of course Draxor misses this point.

Maybe the planet Draxor wants to live on would be ruled by Pol Pot, Castro, or Kim Jong Il.

I forgot to ask, why don't Jurgensmeyer, Draxor, and other like minded people move to these countries? I'm not saying they should, I'm just asking why--if they hate religion so much--don't they go somewhere that is run by people who think as they do? They have the freedom to leave if they choose. Any takers?

Draxor, your flamboyant writing style is at times witty and entertaining, but you miss the point. I will make an attempt to enlighten you, as well as perhaps a few others.

I mentioned the bane of our existence being human nature, and this was something that despite their contradictions and at times arrant hypocrisy, the Founding Fathers understood.

No matter how much is done to coerce people into a given train of thought—be it through “reeducation” programs synonymous with communist countries, measures such as the Spanish Inquisition, or the various sectarian pogroms of the Dark Ages, people will resist these measures. This country was founded upon a stated ideal of understanding this side of the human experience, and as such I can preach my belief that there is a God, and Riceman can preach his/her belief that there isn’t, and we both can do so without hesitation or fear that some person from government is going to knock on our door and take us away. THAT is what I like about living in a free society. Cuba, North Korea, much of the Middle East, China,…Riceman wouldn’t get very far in some of those countries, and I would not in others yet we can coexist in this country. We tend to take this for granted but at the time of its inception, religious freedom was a pretty radical concept. Clearly, there are some who don’t appreciate this freedom, hence they’d rather that those they don’t like should go away to another planet. How progressive and tolerant. (sigh)

With the understanding that no matter who says what there will still be differences among us, the best we can do is be secure enough in what we believe to able to live together despite our differences. With freedom also comes responsibility, and when I see a letter to the editor singling out one group of people for opprobrium (such as Jurgensmeyer has done—all the while hiding behind the putative moral superiority conferred by his academic status) I will counter by pointing out that the intolerance he mentions exists in other groups as well, and that he needs to take a good look in the mirror and see his own scapegoating. When one says that they wish certain people would not inhabit their planet (such as you have done) you only show your intolerance, and ignorance.

The intolerance shown by the author of the letter, Draxor, and some others is far more of a threat to a peaceful way of life than people who believe in God and find solace in going to church on Sunday in their quest to find inner peace.

Yes indeed it may be very annoying to have to put up with those who don't think the way you do, but it's a small price to pay for the freedom we enjoy.

Thanks for the clear headed explanation billclausen. We used to discuss diversity in terms of what we have in common. Now diversity is used to explain how everyone is so different and we must embrace all of those differences. Bizarre. Basic anthropology has proven that humans tend to congregate with people like themselves, tend to fear others that are different, and develop shared beliefs, attitudes and values as mechanisms for protection and survival of their tribe. Even more strange for folks to "hate" religion since all tribes throughout the world developed the equivalence of deities to explain the unexplainable; be it monotheism, naturalism etc. How is a native American belief in Gods of Nature any different or more or less stupid than a Christian God? And contrary to current belief religious wars have not been centered around Christian Gods but have instead been waged under a polyglot of deities over the history of man. By the way, I'm not a Christian but just damn tired of Christians being open season for abuse in the U.S. Talk about bigotry...

Italiansurg, I've noticed that the political fanaticism many of these "tolerant" people display is no different from the religious zeal they criticize.

Their gods in this case are their politicians.

Now I will address another comment--one made by pk:

"How is someone who commits himself to defending the values of Christian Europe and states 'At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian' not a Christian? -pkAugust 1, 2011 at 5:32 p.m.-

PK: To answer your question, Because it's possible for someone to say something that isn't true.

Just because one says "I'm a (fill in the blank with whatever religion or ideology you wish) doesn't make them what they profess to be. Are you that unaware?...or is your anti-Christian bigotry so all-consuming that you're willing to lie to make a point?

PK If someone of your ethnic background killed a bunch and said "I'm doing this to defend the cultural values of (whatever your ethnic group is) would that mean they represent you? According to your quote it means they would.

If you found my previous comment confusing, then let me give you the Cliff's Notes version:

1. The comments previous to mine spent a lot of energy debating which religions spurned more violence & terrorism. I said I believe more effort should be spent on other facets (see #3 below).

2. The comments previous to mine were focused on terrorism based on rationale steeped in Islam. I pointed out that religious violence is also based on other religions - in addition to Islam, I cited Christianity and Judaism as examples. That's it.

The fact that the groups I mentioned are disparate, as you say, is not only irrelevant, but natural since each group has individual goals. Futhermore, I made no attempt to compare or quantify those groups. Finally, all the examples I cited have elements of religious rationalization in them. Just because the violence in Srebenica and other parts of the Balkans were related to civil wars doesn't mean there were no religious rationale. Just because some people think of White Supremicists and Neo Nazis as kooks doesn't mean they don't have religious motivations as well. And on the other end of the spectrum, as Juergensmeyer says, some terror organizations like Al Quada use religion more out of convenience than as a primary driver.

3. And my main point was ... terrorism, whether motivated by religion or otherwise, is a multi-facted problem. I claimed its better to focus less on which religions spur the most violence and to spend more energy focusing on why religion-based terrorism starts & grows in the first place (e.g. lack of personal liberties or freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, lack of ability to self-govern, pure ideology, etc.).

Then as a side note, I added that I think U.S. foreign poilcy should be focusing more on root causes rather than symptoms of the problem.

" ... and when I see a letter to the editor singling out one group of people for opprobrium (such as Jurgensmeyer has done—all the while hiding behind the putative moral superiority conferred by his academic status) I will counter ..."

"... The intolerance shown by the author of the letter ..."

-- billclausen

Sorry billclausen, but I think you're way off on this one.

With regard to Juergensmeyer's article ... I read it as an analysis by someone who studies in the field, not as a slap in the collective face of Christians by a supercillious professor! And I seriously doubt someone who's affiliated with the Religious Studies Dept. could survive long by being a religious "bigot" (as you called him).

Seriously, you've made some good posts in the past few years but you have to let this vendetta/bias against academics go when you disagree with them. I still recall how you've got a gripe against people who sign their articles using their title (M.D., PhD, etc.) even when the topic is one the author is a specialist in!

And not that it matters, but note that Juergensmeyer made no reference to his credentials in his letter. How do you know the byline at the bottom of the article wasn't added or requested by editors @Indy?

And finally, a comment not about other comments but about the opinion piece itself!

I happen to have friends who live in Oslo and Trondheim. They told me after the attack that based on what they were hearing/reading (which is more than we get here) it was a mistake to dismiss Breivik as an uneducated thug or hick driven soley by his own self-made ideas or hatreds, as wack as they might be.

I think its fascinating that Breivik seems to have in his own twisted way "done his homework"! This guy actually had some education and read some history (as Juergensmeyer points out in his article).

"Seriously, you've made some good posts in the past few years but you have to let this vendetta/bias against academics go when you disagree with them. I still recall how you've got a gripe against people who sign their articles using their title (M.D., PhD, etc.) even when the topic is one the author is a specialist in!"

Quite the opposite EastBeach. I get annoyed when someone signs their name as a PhD when the subject matter is unrelated to the field in which they have their PhD. In this case, the author is right to say that Breviek is a terrorist, but he is NOT a Christian.

Why is there so much desire to attack/defend the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim (Islamic) faiths as being more terroristic than another? They are all three Abrahamic religions, so perhaps the issue of violence runs deeper than the specific branches.

" I get annoyed when someone signs their name as a PhD when the subject matter is unrelated to the field in which they have their PhD. In this case, the author is right to say that Breviek is a terrorist, but he is NOT a Christian."-- billclausen

The first part of Juergensmeyer's piece is an examination of the underpinnings of Breivik's manifesto. In that analysis, it is revealed that Breivik's "hot buttons" are related to race, immigration, and the historical conflict between Christian and Islamic cultures/powers in Europe. Simple as that.

After that, the last three paragraphs of Juergensmeyer's piece changes focus and are the best part of his article. My read on it is he's really challenging you, the reader with these questions ...

1. What does it mean to be labelled a Muslim terrorist?2. What does it mean to be labelled a Christian terrorist?3. If Osama bin Laden was a Muslim terrorist despite a dearth of theological motivation, why not call Breivik a Christian terrorist?4. In the end, does it matter what labels you use?

Those questions, I think, are the most interesting parts of Juergensmeyer's piece (in addition to the little morsels taken from Breivik's manifesto).

So billclausen, getting back to your comment, you have to ask yourself, if you feel indignation because you feel that relative to your own religious beliefs, Breivik is not a "real" Christian, does it matter? Next, flip the coin and imagine you're Muslim. How would you feel living in a world where you're automatically associated with Islamic terrorists who aren't "real" Muslims?

"Christian terrorist" in title was just a hook, judging by content of article. How else to interest ppl who use black-and-white thinking on these matters?

Question is, which constituents will politicians be baiting when a vote on Middle Eastern affairs comes up on Capitol Hill? Hoi polloi must be courted. The sorting of Middle Easterners may well be left to Allah.

EastBeach: Here is the very first statement of my first post on this thread.

"Yeah, the guy's a terrorist; that was pretty easy to figure out."Therefore, I'm not denying Breviek is a terrorist, and once again I've had words put in my mouth. What I'm amazed at is how some people can take such an isolated incident and jump on it as indicative of an overall mindset.

Have the various schoolyard killings been religiously motivated. By the way, isn't it ironic that the vast majority if not *all* of those schoolyard massacres have happened at *public* schools? If Jurgensmeyer and others of his leaning have addressed this fact than I stand corrected. Does it also occur to Christian-bashers that since Christianity has declined from our cultural landscape that more of these acts of mass violence have increased in our culture?

This puts into perspective the obsession some people have in scapegoating religion--and in the case of the author--the singling out of one religion. (Especially ironic since bad human rights records and terrorist acts originate far more from Muslim societies than Christian ones)

By the way, would the author of the letter refer to our local gang problem as Mexican terrorism? Or black gangs as black terrorism? (Think drive-by shootings) Saying that this is indicative of the way Christians think is no different from saying that the way gang bangers behave is indicative of how Blacks and Mexicans think; it's an untrue stereotype.

Note to Revisionist: You think people are surprised that you can quote Tom Lehrer and I can quote Lenny Bruce?